What He Said


Ugh, does this mean that we'll have to listen to another round of gay bloggers led by John Aravosis who don't understand how the judicial system works tell us about how Obama is a secret homophobe?

Surely marriage inequality will trump any silly little "principle". If I know anything about conservatives.
Oh, it'll be appealed, alright. And it'll be overturned on appeal. It has to be - it's a flawed decision (it actually contradicts itself - read it). Don't get yourself too worked up about this.
DOMA fails federally, plus full faith and credit clause = federal recognition + states that won't perform it have to accept those performed elsewhere.
Actually, wouldn't you want Obama to keep appealing this? IANAL, but my understanding is that this decision is only binding in the district that it was ruled in (Massachusetts). If you appeal it to the circuit court and you are upheld, it becomes binding in the area that circuit covers. You need to make it to the supreme court before the decision is enforced everywhere.
Everybody keeps missing the point. It isn't about states' rights, or the constitution. This is about HATRED AGAINST GAYS, plain and simple. All logic goes out the window when hatred is in the mix.

Obama will appeal this decision. This decision will be overturned by the Supreme Court.

That is all.
If this sticks, won't this set the precedent, at least in the minds of the public, that states rights trump the federal laws?
Will this be a problem when the situation is reversed?
Will Texas able to say "See, Texas doesn't have to listen to the federal law, just like Massachusetts didn't have to listen to DOMA." or does a federal law mean that anti-gay marriage states won't have to perform the marriages, but they will have to recognize them like New York is doing willingly?
I guess the discriminatory nature of DOMA is what's at fault here, not the State/Federal?

I'm confused.
Oh seriously. The right has never cared about states rights. It was a convenient arguing point when they controlled some states but not the federal government. Look at the Bush years to see just how important states rights were to them.
@6, the primary legal argument made in this case was that DOMA violates the states' rights to establish the parameters of marriage in those states. The core principle behind DOMA is anti-gay bigotry, it's true, but that's not what the case itself was addressing.

Also, why do we continue with this idea that the Obama administration is directly responsible every time it issues a legal defense for an unpopular law? I didn't see anyone attacking Schwarzenegger during the Prop 8 trial, even though the case is technically being defended by his administration (the case is called "Perry v. Schwarzenegger"). That's because anyone with any sense recognized that Schwarzenegger DIDN'T like the law, but it was his OBLIGATION as Governor to defend it. Does the same logic not apply to Obama?
We're getting ahead of ourselves here. Yes, it is a delicious irony. And you have to wonder how much Obama wants to argue in an amicus that the law does not exceed federal authority at the risk of gay support. But the Dems might try to untangle this mess in congress first by repealing DOMA.
The Times had an interesting quote from Prof. Jack Balkin at Yale Law:

By citing the 10th Amendment and making what is essentially a states’ rights argument, Professor Balkin said Judge Tauro was “attempting to hoist conservatives by their own petard, by saying: ‘You like the 10th Amendment? I’ll give you the 10th Amendment! I’ll strike down DOMA!'

I believe this actually has a chance on appeal in the 1st Circuit (MA, NH, RI, ME, PR) but little to no chance when it is, inevitably, taken up on appeal to the SCOTUS. The administration, while ideologically opposed to DOMA, is bound to defend it, barring an unlikely act of Congress that would render further consideration moot (i.e. repeal). I agree the implications of the 10th Amend decision upon which the Commonwealth won, would cover too many programs between the Fed and the States. It will be interesting to see how the 14th amend. contention fares - especially if we hear a decision on "rational basis" out of the 9th Cir before the 1st hears the case. It will be interesting to see if, and then how, the Supreme Court handles these cases individually or together.

It is appalling to think it took until 1967 for something like Loving v. Virginia...I wouldn't be surprised if the next generation looks back the same way at how things may turn out over the next 3-5 years of litigation on same-sex marriage and LGBT rights...
It would be really interesting to see this go to the Supreme Court.

Would Clarence "if its not spelled out in the Constitution its a STATES RIGHTS issue" Thomas vote with the Liberal wing? On occasion he has on things like this, I think there was a pot law or something...
Want to crush DOMA and other anti-gay marriage?

It's simple, actually.

Get 100 gay couples, have them move to Canada and Mexico and get married there.

Have them adopt or have kids there.

Have them move back to the US.

And then have both parents die in a mass accident where al-Qaeda blows them up, leaving hundreds of kids with no gay parents, who can't get SSI benefits and are left homeless.

Then sue under NAFTA.
This ruling could be dangerous to the progressive agenda. If DOMA's direct interference with state prerogatives is beyond federal power, then perhaps so is the recently passed Health Care Act. Obamacare could be vulnerable and unconstitutional by interfering with state policies regarding family formation. This could open up a road map to attack a wide range of federal welfare programs.
@14 hi, concern troll!

I'm hardly a constitutional scholar, but the 10th Amendment gives the states the right to give more rights to their citizens than the federal government guarantees. The only way this directly attacks health care reform is if someone can make a convincing argument that it curtails specific rights, and the states' refusal of HCR somehow reinstates those rights. SCOTUS (especially with Roberts, Thomas, and Scalito on the court) might agree with that, but it's hardly guaranteed.
"IANAL, but my understanding is that this decision is only binding in the district that it was ruled in (Massachusetts)."

It's not even binding there.

I think cases like this have every chance of being successful in the Supreme Court. With the current composition of the Court, it's just a question of giving Kennedy the right excuses to vote the right way. But these cases won't reach the Supremes for several years, by which time the balance of the Court may have shifted in our favor.
@7 FTW
@7: It was a Federal judge that made the ruling. (Remember that all Federal judges are appointed by the POTUS.) The state judiciary had nothing to do with this. Don't get too worried about Dumbfuckistan trying to use the nullification tactic based on this case.
And Alleged at #18? You can eat a hot bowl of cocks.